get_bin_utilization

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses a critical behavioral nuance: the raw fields IsBlockedForOutbound and IsBlockedForInbound have inverted meanings (blocking putaways and stock removals respectively), and the tool provides semantically-named aliases to resolve ambiguity. This goes beyond mere functionality, though it does not cover other potential behaviors like data freshness or performance.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes a valuable note without redundant information. Every sentence contributes meaning, making it efficient and clear.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return fields (block flags, material count, empty flag) and the alias feature. However, it does not mention pagination or limits of the 'top' parameter, but the tool is simple enough that this is not a critical gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 67% (two of three parameters have descriptions). The description does not add meaning to parameters beyond what is in the schema; it only mentions return fields. With moderate coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate as no parameter information is missing critically.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool returns EWM bin-level utilization data including block flags, distinct material count, and empty flag from a specific CDS view. The verb 'Returns' and the resource 'bin-level utilization' are specific and unambiguous, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_stock_overview or get_goods_movement_history.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_storage_type_capacity or get_stock_overview. The description does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.